Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
As for your "evidence". It's only evidence if you jump to the sorts of conclusions that I'm not willing to jump to dipshit. If only you had the sense to see what I was saying.
|
How am I jumping to conclusions when I KNOW what I see? It doesn't happen once or twice but LOTS of times. If you're blind enough to ignore it then that is your prerogative.
Dipshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
Also learn to read dipshit. I clearly said Buddhists CAN BE Atheists (as opposed to Buddhists ARE atheists.).
|
Obviously I gave you too much credit by actually replying to you in a light that made sense.
Let me break it down for you though.
What has "Buddhists can be Atheists" got to do with anything? Sikhs can be Atheists, Christians can be Atheists, hell anyone can be Atheists.. so wtf has a Buddhist that CAN BE an Atheist got to do with what the actual religion itself teaches...
I do despair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
Now you're changing the definition of Western media? To be honest I really only added that line as an afterthought but it stands. The Western media includes investigative reporting as well as headline reporting. Concerning Tibet at least, does it not matter what sort of reporting it was?
|
Noone has changed the definition of "Western Media". The news is what has been argued about here since the start and that is where the majority of people will get their information from. If someone wants to research on their own, they will go look through other types of media but what i've been arguing about is that the news itself is biased. It reports on things and uses
spin to get through their own points of view to the people. The same goes for the Chinese news and noone has denied that but you never answered my question about what Chinese articles you thought actually had been biased.